Pages

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Dissidents. The very sound of the word conjures images of dank apartment hideouts and encrypted notes passed in fervent secrecy under the most bleak of landscapes. Even worse, however, are the more dreary connotations to political prisoners jailed in the utmost of deplorable conditions, forlornly gazing out upon desolate, rain-soaked landscapes through vertical bars - at ground level from subterranean cells - clutched in gnarled, arthritic grasps.

There is also the brave young Chinese man forever emblazoned on the canvasses of our minds from the infamous Tienanmen Square standoff between man and massive machine.

From the moment that Dorothy emerged from her demolished home and stepped out into the Land of Oz, and the cinematic miracle of color was introduced to the American public, the perception of life in this nation was also transformed into one of a seemingly perpetual mood of optimism. It also marked the line at which we began to sink into the coziness of our own magnificence and the notion that the time for rest was at hand. In other words, we had "arrived" and now deserved the luxury of sloth.

Not to suggest that our work ethic declined, far from it, but our sense of invincibility and perpetuity was ingrained in us and passed down through generations. We believed we were a beacon of freedom and power that no one would dream of attacking, and we slept well knowing that had they dared, the consequences would be dire. We never saw the figurative tunnels, though, through which a much more stealthy enemy has fostered success in our demise.

Oh, to be certain, some of us have not only noticed these burrows but have pointed and shrieked at them, to no avail. I have long been loathe to breach the plane of what is considered hysteria, and I am cognizant of the eyes that gaze at my musings, but I feel that in desperate times, someone must ring the alarm bell and risk the scorn of those who would scoff at the allegedly ridiculous prognostications of a careful observer.

I have previously compared Barack Obama to the proverbial alien in humanoid form beginning to grow impatient with the disguise and prematurely reverting to true form. Oddly enough, no one batted an eye or even looked askance at me. So far so good, since another, more plausible analogy is forthcoming.

While the "alien analogy" is useful only for illustrative purposes - since we have yet to actually witness a being from another planet - the concept of the puppet master is nothing new while the practice may well be. Even absent any ideological warning flags, Barack Hussein Obama was nonetheless a gamble due to his utter lack of a verifiable past and any form of pertinent accomplishments for the job. He was elected based on nothing more than a "likability factor" and the rhetoric that sequestered him from his predecessor.

He has since demonstrated a complete lack of understanding for the protocols that have served his office since its inception, but perhaps even more stunning is the absence of knowledge of those precedents by his entire team of advisers. Surely George W. Bush could not know what not to say at a State of the Union address, but his staff certainly did, and they relayed that information to the president. How is it possible that Obama's team could be so remiss in the same duties?

Obama's first SOTU was written for him, reviewed by him, and edited by people allegedly loyal to him. His attack on the Supreme Court was no accident, therefore. I maintain it was a product of Obama's true nature betrayed prematurely by his own impetuousness, and that he's only now getting warmed up. As the resistence continues to swell, look for more draconian measures to be taken, and for more true colors to show through.

Obama has already displayed his disdain for dissent and a desire to silence it. From his coordinated attacks on Fox News to his beseeching of Republicans to stop talking "so he can clean up the mess", his calls for more bipartisanship are nothing more than a veiled way of insisting that things be done his way. Without a fracturing of the triad of Democrats' control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, we could all be dissidents in the next election cycle.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

As Ruth Bader Ginsberg appeared to doze off, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito - who was alert - did a quieter impersonation of South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson in response to a nearly unheard of rebuke of the High Court during a State of the Union Address. With the world as an audience, President Obama took a direct swipe at the Supreme Court's recent decision to void much of the McCain-Feingold travesty.

In the midst of yet another narcissistic, hour-long complaint about the very job he fought so hard to attain, Obama said of the Court:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Alito's seemingly subdued reaction - no doubt necessitated by the sense of decorum so cavalierly abandoned by the president - was, in reality, not much different than Joe Wilson's nearly a year ago. "Simply not true" is a first cousin of "You lie!"

Alito's facial contortions were an indicator of the force with which he meant his silent words. His accompanying look of incredulity spoke volumes of Obama's utter lack of veracity, and one must wonder whether Alito - if he had been watching the speech on television - would have flung his footwear at the screen.

Which also makes me wonder if the president inadvertently stimulated the economy with the rest of his speech, causing a run on Best Buy. I'm sure that there were a great many others across the country who were not encumbered by the protocol responsible for Alito's restraint, and whose frustrations boiled over at some point.

The president continued his juvenile finger pointing, blaming everyone and everything for the nations woes and refusing to accept any culpability, all the while vowing to work hard to right our course. The problem is that his "solutions" are nothing more than accelerating the practices responsible for those woes. He's going to continue to borrow and spend trillions of dollars and crow about saving a few billion through "cuts". Sadly, too many people will only be cognizant of the alleged savings and cheer the president.

Obama says that job creation is now his priority, despite the recent urgency of his failing health reforms. His answer to the unemployment situation does not seem designed to help, but rather to exacerbate the problem through even more prohibitive taxes on the very engine of the economy; "big business". He renewed his call for "bipartisanship", but common ground is not really what he seeks, unless it means hopping the fence to land in his yard. As long as you agree with him, that's called bipartisanship.

I haven't seen an official tally yet, but by my count, Obama referred to himself 102 times, though I may have missed a few due to my own howls of frustration and complete astonishment at the president's level of hubris. Fortunately I was able to resist the urge to hurl inanimate objects at the beautiful television - a gift from my children - as I watched.
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 25, 2010

No matter how much Barack Hussein Obama may cling to the childish belief that no one can see him if only he covers his own eyes, and despite the success he achieved in getting elected, more and more people have slowly emerged from the cocoon of slumber to realize that they now see someone for whom they never intended to vote. And the farther we march into history - leaving scattered days and jagged pages torn from calendars in our wake - the more mild surprise is being rapidly replaced by a more palpable horror.

Like a sci-fi movie alien cleverly disguised in humanoid form for far too long, Obama's true identity is straining the limits of the slick veneer in growing impatience to attain freedom, bubbling ugly in revolting rivulets just beneath the surface. And some of us - just as those select characters in the same movie - have always seen the creature beneath, but our warnings were dismissed as ludicrous even though we have always known of the crunchy, Marxist core deep within.

I have long been astounded that a simple pair of horn-rimmed glasses were more than adequate in keeping people from realizing that Clark Kent was actually Superman but, in retrospect, I see now how easy it is to fool the willing. Or the hopeful. People want to believe that they can make cleaning easy for only $9.95 (plus shipping and handling), and that if they call right now, they can get twice the value for their money (plus a doubling-down on the shipping and handling). The lure of the bargain has always masked the true cost, and it has always been the nature of a business whereby the charlatan causes the citizen to part ways with his cash.

The currency with which we now gamble, however, is nothing so trivial as the trinkets we have accumulated through our labors. The stakes have been raised, the ante is liberty, and we now have a dealer of most ill repute. No one genuinely cared to know whatever personal frailties afflicted, say, Billy Mays, just as those who have invested their futures in Obama find it nearly impossible to realize that they've been duped. And like a slingshot effect, those who have had to come the farthest toward that realization do so with a fury that eclipses the relatively mild disdain that the knowing have long harbored.

Those of us who sounded the alarms loudest in the campaign of 2008 saw Obama in a grass skirt, when he was truly transparent, albeit unintentionally. Many who voted for him are now shocked that Obama in the ghillie suit - which they mistook for a pile of crumpled grass - has sprung up right in front of them.

It's all a matter of perception; some see clearly, others need time to adjust their focus. But for most, as the polls now reveal, the picture is becoming quite sharp. It's about time.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Many of us have been salivating over the prospect of restoring America to her former greatness, but we have been focused on the end of this year when we could alter the political composition of our Congress. As always, it was to be done in the civilized manner synonymous with the United States; the peaceful transition of power.

We have been handed gifts we never expected by the institutions upon which we have always relied for the maintenance of the relative paradise in which we reside, and much earlier than we could ever have imagined. Despite the fact that the left in our country has tried mightily to mimic the electoral processes of Third World countries through subterfuge and chicanery, accusations and legal challenges, we have nonetheless managed to navigate such treacherous waters without riots and bloodshed, proving that the bedrock of our system is sound and the principles of our Forefathers able to withstand the strain of radicalist weight through the years.

With the Democrats controlling the executive and legislative branches of our government, they have still failed to snooker an electorate that - after over 230 years - remains vigilant in the preservation of our ideals. And while much of that electorate has been dormant for far too long, Barack Hussein Obama seems to have been the catalyst to their emergence from hibernation.

The attack began long before Obama was a "viable fetus" but back then it was still in the "planning" stages. Obama became the prodigal son of the left by accident of birth and the subsequent cultivation of his mind by a most undesirable element. Just as an attack that fails still succeeds - see the Christmas Day attack - Obama achieved the status of POTUS, with the help of God knows who, and initiated an agenda that came perilously close to succeeding.

It became the clarion call that would give birth to the Tea Party movement, awakening in the people a spirit we haven't witnessed in 30 years - which marked the end of Jimmy Carter's abysmal administration - and arousing in the Right something previously unimaginable. For the first time in recollection, Conservatives were motivated to march in the streets, and while the new State-run media did it's best to minimize the effect, the royalty borne of our benevolence - Congress - received the message loud and clear.

Say what you will about the George W. Bush legacy. I, for one, was a fan at the outset, but found myself defending in vain near the end. Today, we were the beneficiaries of that legacy in the form of the last president's Supreme Court appointments, for the High Court restored the integrity and spirit of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Ruling on the case against the McCain-Feingold bill, which essentially curtailed the free speech rights of American citizens before Election Day, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn major portions of the legislation, paving the way for corporations to compete with liberal bastions like unions and private, socialist billionaires. Predictably, the Democrats were apoplectic at the sudden encroachment on their monopoly and the prospect of competition.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, outraged by the decision, said:

“We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America.”

I had never heard of Melanie before researching for this article. That may be simply because Melanie apparently had no objections to the the "President from the SEIU", or the multitude of Democrat "Senators and Congressmen from ACORN".

There is pure irony in the Democrats erroneously claiming that the First Amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state, declaring their unwavering devotion to the constitution in the process, all the while flailing wildly at the very same amendments protections of free speech.

The transparency of their hypocrisy should be evident to all, but it seems that is not the case. Perhaps the freedoms restored by the Supreme Court will spawn a plethora of television ads - sponsored by the Ronco Corp. - accurately depicting it for the most dim amongst us.
Sphere: Related Content

Incredibly, Barack Hussein Obama's main regret in his first year as president is that he didn't speak "directly to the American people", and - it seems - not often enough. The underlying message, however, is that he really thinks we're too stupid to comprehend what he has said.

Speaking to ABC's George Stephanopoulos yesterday, Obama said that perhaps he was too focused on policy and not in spelling things out clearly enough for the unwashed masses:

"That I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."

Never mind that he also believes Martha Coakley lost her bid for the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts because the electorate is still mad at George W. Bush. Our problem is that he also thinks he hasn't been visible enough. Saying he thinks he can do a better job connecting with the American people in his second year, he deludes himself further into thinking that he's in a better position now.

"I think that I can do a better job of that, and partly because I do believe that we're in a stronger position now than we were a year ago."

One thing is certain; if he does do a "better job", it's going to cost a whole lot more money. Consider these numbers from year one:

411 speeches, comments and remarks, including 52 on healthcare alone.

42 news conferences.

158 interviews

23 Town Hall meetings

28 political fundraisers

In between, there were 29 rounds of golf. Combined in all of Obama's travels, there were 160 flights on Air Force One and 193 flights on Marine One. According to CBS News, there were a total of 21 days - out of 365 - that the American people did see or hear Barack Hussein Obama.

And he now thinks that he should spend more time explaining things to us. Don't worry, though, he will be sure to speak very slowly and in language the "idiots" can understand. Plus, we will most likely see much more of him, if that is even possible. God help us.
Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an elected public servant representing San Fransisco and America, has a message for us all regarding the special election in Massachusetts and the health care reform that a majority of the electorate opposes; The people have spoken, we have heard you, and we just don't give a damn.

Arrogantly declaring that the will of the people is meaningless, Pelosi said yesterday:

"Certainly the dynamic would change depending on what happens in Massachusetts. Just the question about how we would proceed. But it doesn't mean we won't have a health care bill. Let's remove all doubt, we will have healthcare one way or another."

What she means, of course, is that they will game the system in order to achieve their goals. If Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts today, the Democrats will try to delay his certification by the Secretary of State, Galvin. If that doesn't work, they will try to rush the vote before he is sworn in. As another contingency plan in the event that both of those fail, they will simply deploy the "nuclear option", budget reconciliation, requiring a simple majority of 51% to defy the people.

We have a collection of insolent ideologues now running our country, but it's even worse than the usual culprits in Congress. We also have a president who clearly does not lead as a president but rather like just another senator, one with a lot more power and a lot less experience. It's like tossing a kid the keys to dad's muscle car.

To be certain, a Scott Brown win today will be a good start, but it will amount to little more than a shot across the bow of the Liberal cruise ship. In ten months, I hope we can put one in the hull just at the water line.
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 17, 2010

There were so many red flags in the campaign of Barack Hussein Obama regarding his unsavory associations and his unknown history that one would think a journalist - or a cadre of journalists - would find it impossible to keep the drool from the chin. But instead of multitudes of bib-adorned broadcasters, we saw nothing more than a classroom full of bored children whose only curiosity laid in what to do after school.

Story after blockbuster story was strewn about "newsroom" floors, discarded as insignificant, while teams of dumpster-diving investigators flocked to a little town in Alaska known as Wasilla, searching in vain for anything they could conjure on the republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. And charges of media bias were summarily dismissed despite the obviousness of their extra-curricular endeavors.

What was supposed to be a walk-off home run for the Democrat in the Massachusetts special election for the Senate seat vacated by the passing of Ted Kennedy has turned into an edge-of-your-seat, extra-innings nail-biter. (The analogy is fitting since Martha Coakley referred to former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling as a New York Yankees fan).

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is the Democrat candidate facing Republican state Senator Scott Brown in Tuesday's special election. A few weeks ago it was a foregone conclusion that this would be no real contest at all, with Coakley enjoying a huge polling lead. Brown has since closed the gap and, in some polls, is ahead. So, it's become time for the "non-biased" media to spring into inaction.

In a December article by Paul Kix on Bostonmagazine.com, we learn of the selective prosecution by AG Coakley in which she avoids potentially politically harmful cases. Kix writes:

Savvy politics doesn't always make for great policy, though. Take, for instance, the cases Coakley didn't prosecute as AG. Though she's gone after public officials, the three biggest public-corruption cases of the past three years—the only three that anyone remembers—saw her sitting on the sidelines. The indictment of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi for allegedly receiving payments for state software contracts that he helped push through; the indictments of state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner for allegedly accepting bribe money from undercover FBI agents—Coakley didn't charge any of these people with crimes. The U.S. Attorney's Office did. The FBI had video proof of Wilkerson stuffing bribe money into her bra. Coakley did nothing. The Globe and Secretary of State William Galvin hammered DiMasi and his (allegedly) shady friends for 14 months. And the best Coakley could do was indict DiMasi's golfing buddy Richard Vitale? On misdemeanor charges?

Add to this dereliction of duty the allegations of campaign finance chicanery by Coakley and it would appear that there is plenty of fodder to keep journalists busy. And they have noticed something worthy of alerting the American voting public, indeed.

No no, nothing to do with the Democrat, don't be silly. But, while not actually known as a media outlet, Cosmopolitan magazine thought it might be pertinent to dig through their archives and report on a most seismic event in the past of one of the candidates. That would be the Republican Brown, of course.

Truthfully, this is nothing new, as the "exposé" in Cosmo is from September 2009, and that was long before anyone even cared who Scott Brown was. But now, as he is poised to upset the Democrats' apple cart, look for tomorrow to bring media headlines splashed all over the place warning that a man who nearly thirty years ago posed in a women's magazine is not qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Also pay close attention to the lack of concern over a state Attorney General who cannot utilize the power of that office to prosecute crimes unless politically expedient, but uses the same acumen in an effort to circumvent state and federal campaign finance laws. That's the one we need.
Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 16, 2010

So here we stand, at the precipice of the cliff, with Democrats and world socialists having both palms firmly planted squarely between our shoulder blades, ready to give that final shove. Before the deadly plunge, they lean in close, whispering in our ears that we are going to get what we wanted, at last. And lastly, that we should thank them, then the dizzying whoosh of air as the ground races up to meet us.

It was a long road to get to this point, and much negotiating and haranguing took place. A goodly portion of the proponents of our demise needed coercion, convincing and outright bribes. The last group to make it possible to cross the finish line gave their approval only after being excluded from the legions of pushees. Funny how that works.

With Universal Health Care about to be rammed down the throats of a defiant populace, the left still incredibly claims that they are about to make history in passing the "people's legislation". Even more disturbing is the fact that a once reliable institution in the press has abetted in the process, lying to the public and aggressively pushing this insane agenda. When someone takes a foul-tasting medicine while grimacing in the most hideous fashion, it is impossible for any thinking person to believe the words "delicious" emanating from such a twisted countenance.

Yet, we have seen the arm-twisting necessary to navigate the minefield of health care reform, and we have been witness to what would - in any other situation - be considered criminal influence. Lobbying bribery was once seen as a most serious offense where our Congress was concerned (see Jack Abramhoff), but now the lobbying is waged from the top down. To make matters worse, the bribes used are financed by our payroll deductions. Senator Ben Nelson's acquiescence is evidence enough of the shell game the White House and Congressional leadership play with the money they seize from us.

The majority party has also massaged the rules in the way they swore in Congressmen Bill Owens of New York 72 hours after he was declared the winner in his special election, despite the fact that the election results were not yet certified by the New York Secretary of State. They needed his vote the next day. Now, in Massachusetts, they are saying that Scott Brown - if the victor in Tuesday's special election - may not be certified by that state's secretary for two weeks, which thankfully has drawn a rare scrutiny from the media.

Not to worry, the Socialists have that covered; they are now discussing "reconciliation", otherwise known as the "nuclear option" in which they could shut out the minority party by declaring a simple majority (51) vote will suffice. Somehow, they believe that the outrage which will certainly explode if they use a double standard in the certification of Brown in Massachusetts will be neutralized by this method. They think us fools.

Someone asked today, "If this bill is so great, why is it that the only way to get people to support it is if they can be excluded?" The Unions are now on board after the White House caved to demands that the "Cadillac tax" not apply to their members. Why would they not exchange their vote to push if it were not them standing in front of the pusher at the ledge?

While the actual details of the proposal are murky, at best, the message that it is detrimental should be glaring. The fact that our elected representatives are representing the interests of a minority of the population is the start. The chicanery being employed in getting it passed is stunning, from the lack of promised transparency to the alleged urgency with which they move. Like a petulant child, Obama wants to have a health care bill in his hand for the State of the Union Address come hell or high water, as evidenced by the fact that a date has not yet been set for the speech.

One has to wonder why a man would work so hard to facilitate the end of his own career.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Just how far are the Democrats willing to go to "transform America"? It would appear that they now feel impervious to the electorate, able to perform the most politically suicidal acts with impunity. They have proved that no measure of disdain from the people who elected them will deter them from their hideous agenda, and they have also made it abundantly clear that they can do what they wish, the people be damned, so long as they hold the reins of power. That is all about to change, but for the time being, they are hellbent on beating us to the finish line.

Our Congress was intended by the Founders as something entirely different from what it has become. Representatives and U.S. Senators were supposed to be delegates of their respective states negotiating on the federal level with the Union, not the collection of scoundrels currently colluding to usurp the will of the people. (Rep. Charlie Rangel [D-Bronx, NY] was recently quoted as complaining that they had to find a way to bypass the States).

National politicians are what they have become, and they unduly influence State politics based on a party line. Case in point; Ted Kennedy could never have been able to stencil his name on the back of "his" Senate seat without the power of the DNC. And when he passed away, the DNC pressured Massachusetts Democrats to change the law preventing the governor from appointing an interim Senator. In fact, it was done at Teddy's behest as perhaps his last wish.

Funny thing is, in 2004, when Mass. Senator John Kerry was running for president of the United States, that State's Legislature passed the very law they reversed in 2009, allowing current Democrat Governor Deval Patrick to appoint Paul Kirk (D) to fill the spot of Kennedy until a special election could be held. They, of course, thought that by doing so they would have a filibuster-proof 60 member majority and have passed Universal Health Care by now. The latter didn't happen.

In 2004, however, the Democrats changed the law to prevent GOP Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement for Kerry in the event that he became POTUS and thus vacated his Senate seat. As if all of that isn't bad enough - and the most glaring examples of both hypocrisy and audacious foul play - there are the maneuvers of just the past few months.

In Upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District in November, Democrat Bill Owens narrowly edged out Conservative Doug Hoffman after uber-liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. In a blatant move for purely partisan gain, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi swore Owens into office a mere 72 hours after the election - despite the state of New York not having had time to certify the election - and just in time for the House vote the next day on the health care bill.

Now, in Massachusetts, the Democrats are positioning for yet another end-around with January 19th looming. On that day, there will be a special election for the seat vacated by Kennedy in which Republican Scott Brown has pulled into a virtual tie with the Democrat candidate, State Attorney General Martha Coakley. But the Democrats are already preparing for a Brown victory; should Brown be elected the new Senator from Massachusetts, the Democrats will delay his electoral certification until February 20th.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin has said so.

If the accompanying photos are not enough to describe how the Democrats feel about you, I don't know what would be adequate.
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 11, 2010

"We've been duped!" Those are the first three words I want to hear from the mainstream media bobble heads. And from Al Gore, I want to hear, "Oh crap, I'm broke!" An apology would be nice, too.

So-called experts have been telling us that a little cold snap, such as we're experiencing all across the Northern Hemisphere, did not pardon make, and that we were nonetheless still destroying the planet with our belching of CO2. "Pay no attention to that frigid weather", they said, because weather and climate are separate issues. They told us of the melting arctic ice cap and how the north pole would be ice free in summer by 2013.

According to a story from Sunday in the UK's Daily Mail, this cold weather we're in the midst of is only the beginning of a "global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists." The article goes on:

"Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

Since 2007? Why have we been told all this time that the arctic sea ice was still declining? Perhaps the most confusing aspect of all of this is that it's cooling while CO2 levels continue to rise. Something just doesn't quite add up here, folks. You can be certain that the Disciples of AGW are working feverishly (pardon the pun) to develop the a way to spin this into even more proof of their insane theories.

It remains to be seen how the media - which has been eager accomplices in propagating this lie - will report on these findings. Will they be angry that they were played for fools? And what of the schools, which been teaching the children about the destructive ways of their mommies and daddies? Will they now be forced to recant?

My guess is that the cap and trade machine will suddenly turn on the very scientists they touted in their crusade who now reveal the scam. This is going to either be a very bumpy and thrilling ride, or once you're done reading here, this is the last you'll ever hear on the subject. Only time will tell.
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 10, 2010

It should be abundantly clear by now to the American people that no matter who they befriend - and no matter what "race" those people are - it will never be sufficient to counter the claims of so-called "racial leaders" who have a vested interest in keeping the "struggle" alive. Harmony will never be tolerated, no matter the cost in human lives, for it is of paramount importance to them to maintain a level of hostility into which they can inject themselves as "saviors" at the most opportune of moments.

While I am delighted - admittedly in a purely partisan sense - in the delicious irony of a black Republican Chairman taking to task one of my most despised liberal senators in Harry Reid, I find the joy of comeuppance fading in the dingy reality of it all. It's almost like having the incredibly rare opportunity of personally beheading Osama bin Laden; for all of my personal bravado, I sincerely doubt that I could carry out such a task while giggling. Righteousness, to be certain, but glee would surely evade me, for it would certainly be a most gruesome task.

Michael Steele, Republican Party Chairman, has called for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to step down over comments Reid made in 2008 about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. According to accounts of Reid's remark from a book called Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, the Nevada Senator said, "the country was ready for a 'light-skinned' African-American president with 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'"

Forget the idiocy of such a comment, if you can, and think instead of the reactions to it by the left. There is a collective silence from the voices of outrage that belong to the alleged "black leaders" alluded to earlier, and the target of such a remark - President Obama himself - has given his forgiveness already. Would such magnanimity have been offered to someone like say, Trent Lott? That is not a hypothetical question, since we already know the answer...Lott was excoriated for much less.

Still, that is not my complaint. My problem with Steele's response stems from the fact that the ordinary folks, both black and white, who increasingly gravitate toward one another - despite the wedge that is constantly thrust between them - grow weary of this type of rhetoric. They are tired of being used as tools in a war that liberals will not allow to die, despite their falsely declared revulsion at the very prospect of war. It has become apparent that a seemingly harmless war of words is something from which they do not shy since they have the trusty shield of Achilles, otherwise known as the media.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not suggesting that Steele should have remained silent, as the absence of a reply would have gone completely unnoticed and only encouraged the perpetration of similar inanities. Therein lies the unfortunate state in which our society finds itself; while most of us would prefer to be left to our own devices and associations, we cannot get past the absurd stereotypes thrown in our faces. They demand to be addressed. Never mind that they may be summarily dismissed with a hearty laugh as bi-racial pals smack one another on the back at the summer picnic.

The forces that thrive on division always seem to creep into the psyches of the masses, albeit through the careful cultivation of a conniving entity known as the Civil Rights Movement. Once a noble endeavor, this movement has become obsolete by the grace of those it served, who took the lessons and applied them in true American fashion; they learned to embrace the precepts and to love one another. Sadly, this became a threat to the movement whose benevolence turned to an urgent yearning for legitimacy.

When we, the People, finally cast off the chains of a once-loving government and accept that yes, we are ok after all, we will ultimately be freed from the ravages of race envy, and once and for all be able to live and love together.

Thanks to Naked Emperor News And Breitbart TV for the video in this post. Try to imagine the gigantic "AHA!" reaction the media would have had if something similar was uncovered with then-Governor George W. Bush leading a chant at a "Big Oil" conference, for example.

And yet, here is then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama leading a chant in the midst of a thuggish union gathering, promising to "transform America".

Cue the crickets...and get ready to roll up your sleeves. By the time this agent of America's doom is done, we're going to need a whole lot of red, white and blue paint to undo the damage.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Since as far back as FDR's New Deal, it seems that the Democrats' modus operandi has been designed to destroy the institution of the family and create a nation entirely dependent on government. It has always been cleverly disguised as "compassion", and anyone who saw it for what it really is and spoke about it was castigated as a conspiracy theorist.

Welfare for unwed mothers has been the perpetual carrot on a stick for many, enticing fathers to abandon their families for the sake of a buck, and encouraging mothers to continue to reproduce for another buck. Children became a sort of inventory for these people.

More recently, the "compassionate" government has taken up the practice of extending unemployment benefits, enabling people to stay home for longer periods of time and removing the urgency to seek gainful employment. And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, Congress is poised to enact their Universal Health Care boondoggle which will compel couples to say "I don't".

Under the government's plan, the average married couple will pay $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums above what couples who live together out of wedlock will pay. The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate healthcare bills is designed to prevent "inequities" to single parents. Democrat staffers who helped write the Senate bill, for example, acknowledge the presence of the penalty and say that to favor married couples wouldn't be fair.

For instance, they said making the subsidies neutral towards marriage would lead to a married couple with only one bread-winner getting a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income-level.

"The Finance Committee, along with other committees in the Senate, took pains to craft the most equitable overall structure possible, and that's what we have here," said a Democratic Senate Finance Committee aide.

Also from the article:

If the bill passes in its current form, it would be far from the first example of federal and social benefits creating incentives to remain single. Under current law, marriage can have a negative impact on a person's ability to claim the earned income tax credit and welfare benefits including food stamps.

In any progressive system of taxes or benefits, there are trade-offs between how well-targeted a subsidy is and how equitable it is, said Stacy Dickert-Conlin, an economics professor at Michigan State University.

"You might like to have it be progressive, equitable and marriage-neutral. But you have to decide what your goals are, because you can't accomplish all three," she said.

I think they have decided long, long ago what their "goals are", and they have been marching inexorably towards achieving them from the beginning. The only difference between the methods of the '60's and today is that they are less covert in their application.
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

In the aftermath of the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, the American public can sleep easy knowing that their president has vowed to fix the "systemic failure" of the nations intelligence networks. Laying the blame squarely on the CIA, Barack Hussein Obama said that the agency screwed up in failing to prevent Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding the plane.

One would conclude from Obama's reaction to this incident - and from his rhetoric - that he takes the threat of terrorism seriously, and intends to do everything he can to keep America safe from harm. However, that conclusion would be erroneous.

On January 5th The New York Times reported that “The nation’s top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government’s intelligence assets—including spy satellites and other classified sensors—to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change.” This may explain why the CIA may have been just a tad preoccupied and failed to detect Abdulmutallab, and makes one wonder what else the CIA might be missing.

While it's clear that Obama views global warming as more of a threat than Islamic terrorism, he believes that both can be handled in the same way, and that is through the redistribution of wealth. On the issue of tackling "climate change", Obama says that “as the world’s largest economy … America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change.” In other words, we have to send gobs of our money to poorer nations to "level the playing field".

As for terrorism, Obama also foolishly believes that the quarrel is about poverty and fairness. Speaking of the Christmas Day bombing attempt on January 2nd, Obama commented:

"The investigation into the Christmas Day incident continues, and we're learning more about the suspect. We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty... It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and that this group... trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America".

This to somehow suggest that they attack us because they're impoverished, despite the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the youngest son of Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, one of the richest men in Africa. When the young man lived in London, he lived in a $4 million dollar apartment. Hardly the stuff of discontent.

While radical Muslims plot round the clock to figure out a way to murder as many of us as possible, Obama has the CIA's spy satellites trained on polar ice caps and taking a polar bear census. (Couldn't ACORN do that?)

Monday, January 4, 2010

In 2006, when the Democrats once again regained a majority in Congress, they promised a new era of transparency in government. Then, with an abetting media that pummeled President Bush with virtually no quarter given, Barack Hussein Obama promised the same see-through form of government, leading to an easy electoral victory over Republican candidate John McCain in the General Election that landed him in the White House and the most powerful position on the planet.

The problem is, the people who voted for Obama never really had much time to realize the suffocating peril of the Democratic brand of "transparency" and so, were caught off guard once the product was delivered November 4th, 2009. Sadly, there is no return policy such as offered by the Home Shopping Channel. We bought the goods with a certain risk attached and now stare forlornly at the pile of steaming dung in our living rooms, and are stuck with the monthly payments.

Retailers years ago began packaging products in clear, cellophane wrapping so that consumers could see the product before buying. It was designed to boost sales by offering the consumer a better visual of a marvelous product. Now, the Democrat controlled Congress is moving with a stealth that defies their early promises of transparency, trying to ram through their vaunted health care reform bills, which will be presented to the public in a plain, brown wrapper. Perhaps when we open it they will yell "SURPRISE!" in unison.

Pelosi and Reid are moving swiftly to reconcile both chambers' versions of the bills they each passed last year. In the process, they have basically told their impotent Republican counterparts to take that plastic bag marked "this is not a toy" and place it over their heads. (And I still can't imagine just how terrible the final product will be, when the Democrats so cavalierly seem poised to jeopardize the super-majority they currently enjoy. Certainly they must realize the political suicide they undertake).

Not only are the Republicans being left out of the process, but pesky House Democrats who object to the "federal funds for abortion" aspects are also being avoided. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is going back to Washington on Tuesday to hold secret meetings with both leaders, a full week before the House officially reconvenes. And Waxman says that the process for moving the bill forward will not involve the standard House/Senate conference committee - where normal reconciliation takes place - so that the Democrats can avoid the motions to select and instruct conferees in the Senate. It seems that they can't be bothered with protocol which would require another 60-vote majority for final passage.

All of this chicanery and yet, the majority of Americans - 52% as of yesterday - are opposed to it. Our elected officials clearly believe that they no longer work for us, the people. And the once dedicated watchdogs in the press clearly no longer care.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

We all know what happened in December with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson regarding the health care bill, but let's summarize anyway. Nelson was the only Democrat standing not only in the way of alleged Obama progress, but standing on principle in doing so. Then, with the allure of something Senators have been powerless to resist - money for their states - principle became an affordable commodity, and Nelson sold out to the Democratic leadership, abandoned integrity and gave his blessing to that which moments before he was opposed.

Afterwards, at the behest of South Carolina Senators Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, South Carolina GOP Attorney General Henry McMaster formed a coalition of ten Republican State Attorneys General - which has since grown to thirteen - that is threatening to file suit against the Senate health care bill on the basis of special treatment for one state, Nebraska, over the other 49 states. You see, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote a check to Nelson and Nebraska - using our money - for that states Medicaid program. Nelson immediately caved on his position of "principle".

McMaster's suit is based on the constitutionality of preferential treatment for one state above others. It has, shall we say, gravitas. With that in mind, Nelson has asked the South Carolina Attorney General to "call off the dogs". Pleading his case, Nelson reportedly told McMasters that he never asked for the deal, and went further by explaining that the same deal would be extended to the other states. Great.

So now we can expect the "Hoosier Handout" or the "Buckeye Bailout". Government philanthropy at its best. "Charity is easy when it costs nothing" should be the mantra of the U.S. Congress.

With the Nelson deal set to cost the federal government an average of $10 million per year, for a sparsely populated state, it must be considered what the cost will be for states such as New York and California should the same be offered to them. Perhaps it should be more important to realize that there will be no actual "cost" to the federal government at all, but to the American taxpayer instead.

Of course it could be argued that tax money is tax money and that the source is the people nonetheless, but the entity collecting and subsequently distributing these funds is of paramount importance, and this Nelson/Nebraska affair is a textbook illustration of the perils of a centralized federal monolith. The federal government was never intended to be the basket into which all taxes collected land. That body was set up to be little more than the referee for the states in the union and, more importantly, as the overseer of the nations defenses. Simple job requirements.

But now, just as our founders feared, the denizens of our capitol have envisioned themselves as kings and queens. And our governors have all but acquiesced and eagerly relinquish their thrones, as it were, in deference to the upper-case State. Despite the personal wealth of our representatives in Congress, they all seem to exhibit the mentality - albeit on an entirely different scale - of your garden variety welfare recipient, jonesing for more handouts from the seemingly bottomless well of Uncle Sam.

As we have been ever vigilant for enemies on the horizon, we have missed the kind aunt at the door. Benevolence has never been suspect regardless of the funding source. Perhaps it's time for a bit more scrutiny.

Friday, January 1, 2010

The notion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) has been foisted on the worlds population with relative ease as anyone who can see a photograph of a smoke stack will readily believe the worst. All it took was for someone to corral the emotion of the masses, who naturally hate pollution, and channel that into a most profitable business venture.

Next, by offering a multitude of scientists nearly unlimited grant money to "investigate" and promote the agenda, the formula was an even easier sell to the public, who naturally deferred to the minds of academia. Armed with the findings of such great minds, people who already had a liberal bent were won over instantly, and it wouldn't be long before the unsure were convinced that we must be destroying our planet.

The problem is the head start the Alarmist crowd had. By the time saner heads had time to react it was considered near blasphemy to contradict their claims. Then, when genuine scientists emerged in opposition to the so-called science of AWG, they were quickly cast as heretics being bought out by the oil industry, which had already been successfully painted as evil and greedy, not caring about anything but profits. How ironic then that the financial motivations of the Alarmist crowd was so cleverly masked.

Once the gears were set in motion, the last ploy was to get the entertainment industry to buy into it and use their considerable fame and exposure to further propagate the lie.

From Cheryl Crow's infamous "one square of toilet paper" to demands that we all revert to riding rickshaws (ostensibly powered by small Oriental men who somehow defy the laws of physics and emit no carbon dioxide or methane in their labors), we have been cast as the villains responsible for "climate change". Former Vice President Al Gore has succeeded in convincing enough people that CO2 causes global warming and that we are pumping massive amounts of that gas into our atmosphere.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that past warming trends have always happened long before rises in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide occurred, the Chicken Littles have managed to promote the notion that cars belching exhaust must certainly be killing us all. There have been holes - big enough to sink the Bismarck - shot in the theories of Gore and the IPCC, but there is no unconvincing the convinced.

For the gullible, all it takes is one photo of a billowing smoke stack or a solitary polar bear in a yellow polka-dot bikini. As the saying goes, a picture is worth its weight in soot, or something like that. When you try to tell these people that man-made global warming is a hoax they invariably extricate one of these photos - where it is lovingly kept in their wallets, next to the pictures of their "adorable children" - shove it in your face and shriek, "See?!?" And yet, a blizzard in June means nothing to them.

The Alarmists remain undeterred in their crusade against CO2 despite the fact that it is a trace gas in our atmosphere. Now that Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol has released a study showing that airborne concentrations of CO2 have not increased in 160 years, expect an acceleration in the fear mongering of these people and an increase in the shrillness of their pleas.

During the course of the last year, with the economy faltering, we heard the catch-phrase "too big to fail" in relation to the banking and auto industries. Well, with the vast amounts of money invested in "green" technology, and the investors poised to lose fortunes if the game goes awry, look for their writhing of denial concerning phony scientific claims to increase exponentially. This we have already witnessed in the email scandal from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia.

Perhaps many of those who refuse to see the truth actually do see it but are simply too embarrassed to admit that they bought into such an elaborate scam.